Arlington Town Meeting

Absent a special town meeting, that’s it until next year.

It seems so weird to be done with TM by mid-May. Seven sessions is the shortest meeting I’ve been in over my 11 years in TM (next shortest was 10, I think). Not unrelatedly this was the shortest warrant I’d ever seen, and one with only two zoning articles. So right from the top it was clear that absent some strange controversies we’d finish quite a bit sooner than usual.

I was glad that Elsie Fiore made the statement she did at the end and received the long ovation. She was right on. I’ve been on record elsewhere as saying I felt Article 67 was not an appropriate subject to be before TM, but there is no excuse for not even being willing to hear out the proponents. The Moderator did the right thing by refusing to recognize a motion to terminate debate before the proponents even had a chance to speak, and once the Moderator made it clear to Mr. Daly that the motion would not be taken until the proponents spoke, Mr. Daly did not do himself proud by interrupting and otherwise demanding the floor.

As for the Moderator, it will be very strange (but interesting!) to see Mr. Worden down on the floor and (presumably) addressing the meeting as a non-neutral for the first time in my tenure. Based on remarks he’s made, letters to the editor he’s written, etc. over the years I have some suppositions on what sorts of positions he might take on various issues and it’ll be amusing/educational to see how right or wrong I may be.

It will also be strange to see a new moderator up on stage for the first time in my tenure. I’ll be immodest enough to hope it turns out to be me, but I know it will take a hard race to get there, should I go forward with putting my hat in the ring.

Preliminaries:

• Called to order at 20:00.
• Moved that if we don’t finish we come back 17 May at 20:00.
• The Manager said the Mystic dam is fine and that the sandbagging was to prevent the flow through the spillway (which goes through someone’s yard) from eroding the yard and flooding the home. He also said Town crews were helping out Sunnyside-area residents.
• Mr. Greeley welcomed Mary Ronan back to the meeting after her bout with illness.
• Ms. Rowe said the BOS, SchoolComm, and the Town’s state legislators will have a meeting on 22 May at 18:00 in the BOS meeting room to discuss Chapter 70 aid.
• Mr. Schlictman said there would be (60th) birthday cake for Mr. Tosti like there was ten years ago.
• Mr. Judd announced the 13th annual Hurd 5K Walk in memory of Amy Scoppettulolo which this year will be going from Thorndike to Hurd Field, followed by a cookout. He said brochures and pledge forms will be available from him and from various fraternal organizations around town.
• Ms. Fiore said that John Perry, a long time FinComm member and TMM died a few months ago. She said that among many other things, he made model boats from scratch and that some of them are on display in the East Cambridge Savings Bank.

Article 20 – 55 Venner Road:

• Resumed 20:18.
• Mr. O’Conor asked for and received five extra minutes. He introduced Mr. Wren, one of the abutters. Mr. Wren said he likes the green space shielding his home from Route 2 and has concerns about development at 55 Venner. He said he has offered to buy buffer space from the owners and there is a “tentative verbal agreement” and wished there was more time to work things out. Mr. O’Conor said we should vote no action to allow for more time to pass and to get more answers.
• Mr. Schlichtman tended to agree with no action. He said that we cannot come to the right conclusion given the choices the article allows. He said that the Town should demand the bulk of the value of the land in return for releasing the exterior lines. However, he said other actions than releasing the lines might be worth doing and so we should vote for no action now.
• Mr. Kazarian said that “good government is just government” and that there has been much misinformation about the article. He said that the Town did not purchase development rights but only the right to prevent building between the lines in order to allow for extending the road and that since the Town is on record as saying it will not extend the road, the Town owns nothing of value. He endorsed the Carman substitute motion saying that “justice requires it”.
• Mr. Carman presented a substitute motion to release the lines on the condition that the owners pay $20,000 and that no more than one additional lot is created. He said even 50% of the value of the lot would have a negligible effect on the $500,000,000 the Town will be spending in the next five years. He pointed out that the Town has paid nothing towards maintaining the land and has no liability for anything that happens on it and therefore it is unfair to demand half the value of the land.
• Ms. Worden said that Mr. Kazarian’s remarks were full of serious errors and noted that the Town paid a “substantial sum” back in 1942. She said that unlike at Grey & Situate, the Town has control. She said releasing the lines would set a bad precedent and that the owners and developers must not be allowed to profit from this. She said the neighbors were left in the dark and that the best option is to vote no action and so defer any decision.
• Mr. Leone asked for and received five extra minutes on a voice vote. He stated he was not being paid by the proponents and was helping them as a friend. He moved a substitute motion to unconditionally release the lines. He said the Town owns nothing besides the right to prevent building between the lines and that the lines were not mentioned in the owners’ deed and that the plot plan had the lines marked as abandoned. He said the Town took another 3,500 sq. ft in 1978, bringing the land below 18,000 st ft. which means only one other house could be built on it. He said the Town wants 50% of the new lot even though it has only paid $23/year for the restriction and noted that after taxes (which would have to be paid on the whole sales amount even though half would go to the Town), the payment to the Town, and closing costs, the owners would only end up with about 25% of the value of the land. He said the misinformation around the article was incredible and decried the “ridiculous speculation” on the owners’ motives. He said he hasn’t been shown anything showing the FMV of a buildable lot and hasn’t been shown anything proving the Town paid FMV for the lines in 1942. With respect to our vote a couple of years ago to release some lines along Massachusetts Avenue, he read from the official transcript quoting Mr. O’Brien as saying the Town would pay to get rid of unused exterior lines. He introduced the daughter of the proponents. Ms. Long said that if the public purpose the lines were taken for no longer exists, the lines should be abandoned and that it would be improper to co-opt the original purpose of the taking for another purpose.
• Mr. Quinn urged a vote no action since so many things about the article are in dispute and because we would only have one chance at it. He said inflating the original price by CPI is an improper approach and hoped that the abutters could work something out with the owners.
• The Manager went over his latest handout, which was a court case from the 1930s in which the SJC ruled that damages paid when lines are established should be the difference between the pre-lines and post-lines value and that in a similar case a jury had found the damages on restricted land further taken were only $1. The Manager argued this implied the Town deserved compensation that was a significant fraction of the post-release value of the land.
• Mr. Foskett disclosed he was a long-time friend of the proponents and stated that if the meeting failed to act responsibly it could impact the rights of all property owners in Town. He said that there may have been much miscommunication but that it was irrelevant as we should decide based on the known facts. He said that inflation-adjusting the taking price would come to about $20,000 and if the takin price had been invested in 6-month CDs it would come to about $75,000 and therefore demanding 50% of the land value would be “confiscatory”. He said that since the Town has no plans to ever extend the road, it should release the lines. He pointed out that the Town does not own the land and has no responsibilty for any liabilities associated with the land and thus cannot see how the Town can claim to be due 50% of the land value. He said he once asked why the Town did not charge more for building permits and was told it could not charge more than the fair cost of the service provided as the Town was not allowed to make a profit on taxpayers and cited the anti-arbitrage law as a similar statement of the principle. He said the Town’s position is “unseemly” and “shameful” and that it was not right for the Town to switch the purpose of the restriction without due process.
• Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said the original request was to abandon lines so the owners could build an addition and that she supported that idea. However, she said the requests have changed and neighbors had not been told. She said the meeting needed to think of the good of the town and that the purpose of easements is to protect the public good. She said she was leaning towards no action.
• Recess 21:27 through 21:40.
• Ms. Rowe said all sides have had good intentions and that it is time to stop talking, learn to compromise, and act. She said waiting another year would not accomplish anything.
• Mr. Rehrig moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• Leone substitute motion defeated.
• Carman substitute motion defeated.
• BOS recommendation defeated at 21:48.

Article 28 – Home Rule Legislation/Tax Exemptions:

• The Moderator noted that a proper final vote had not been taken on Article 28 and asked Mr. Tosti to move to reconsider. Motion to reconsider approved.
• Reconsidered 21:49.
• BOS recommendation as substituted by FinComm approved unanimously at 21:49.

Mr. Tosti moved to take Articles 38 and 39 from the table — approved.

Article 38 – Collective Bargaining:

• Untabled at 21:50.
• Mr. Tosti said an agreement had been reached with Local 680 and the librarians and moved a vote to fund the agreements subject to official union ratification.
• The Manager said the contracts are for a 2% wage increase with some health concessions and some benefits adjustments. He said the contracts are within the 5-year plan committments.
• Mr. Rosselli claimed it was illegal to bargain wages and health care together and said there was a cease-and-desist order against the Town prohibiting it from putting an article before the meeting unless the union had ratified the agreement. Mr. Maher replied that the votes are valid and legal and that the order said contracts could not be taken before the meeting until the union negotiating team signed a memorandum of agreement which they had done. Mr. Rosselli continued to insist the law and the order were being violated. He asked the BOS what they voted on tonight. Mr. Greeley said the BOS voted 5-0 to fund the contracts pending union approval.
• Mr. Fischer said he would vote for it.
• Mr. Schlichtman moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• FinComm motion on 38(a) and 38(c) approved and no action approved on all the other sub-parts at 22:03.

Article 39 – Collective Bargaining:

• Begun 22:03.
• FinComm moved to set aside $190,575 to fund future CBAs.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:04.

Article 56 – Appropriation/Minuteman Senior Services:

• Begun 22:04.
• FinComm recommended no action.
• No action approved unanimously at 22:04.

Article 57 – Home Rule Legislation/Senior Citizen Program:

• Begun 22:04.
• FinComm recommended a vote to appropriate $7,500 to implement a program where seniors providing community service could receive payment.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:05.

Article 58 – Appropriation/200th Anniversary Committee:

• Begun 22:05.
• FinComm recommended an appropriation of $1,000.
• Ms. Meister moved to amend the $1,000 to $6,200. She said the committee is planning 15 months of events and that the funds are “desperately needed”. She said the $6,200 was a “symbolic drop in the bucket” and is twice what was appropriated 100 years ago. She said the committee appeared before FinComm but that FinComm held firm. She said the committee has raised $3,500 so far but needs more seed money. She closed by reading a passage about the importance of the celebration from the 100th Anniversary program.
• Mr. Tosti said the committee should have asked for what it needed. He said the committee first asked for $52,000 and then for $26,000. He said FinComm believed it should be privately funded but recommended a $1,000 appropriation to help get them started.
• Mr. Jamieson said he supported the amendment and that the Town could afford to spend $6,200 on this.
• Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• Meister amendment defeated, doubted, then defeated 77-87.
• FinComm recommendation approved at 22:14.

Article 59 – Appropriation/Retiree Healthcare Trust Fund:

• Begun 22:14.
• FinComm recommended an appropriation of $248,410 to the Fund.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:15.

Article 6 – Zoning/Open Space Parking:

• Begun 22:15.
• Mr. Judd moved to reconsider, saying that we originally decided the vote on insufficient facts, since currently every parking space at every playground and park is a non-conforming use and that if any modifications or repairs needed to be done, they would not be allowed. He said this is an error that needs to be corrected, and is not an attempt to pave playgrounds, and that in addition to any other approvals, a special permit would be required.
• Mr. O’Brien reported that the ARB said the use should be allowed and that preventing parking places at one spot by outlawing parking at all spots is impractical and so parking should not be a precluded use in open space districts. He said under the recommended vote any parking work would have to come before the ARB for a special permit and for environmental designing review which would in turn require a public hearing and notification of abutters.
• Mr. Quinn asked if there were any Symmes implications and Mr. O’Brien replied there were none.
• Mr. Schlichtman moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• Motion to reconsider approved, doubted, approved 124-24.
• Mr. Carabello said the Parks and Recreation Department is not trying to pave open space. He said there is a safety issue at Thorndike where cars often have to leave by backing up all the way to Lake Street. He said a turnaround is needed which will require paving some non-field green space.
• Mr. Chaput said the omission was an oversight by the ARB. He said paving can’t be done arbitrarily because of the special purpose requirement and urged support.
• Mr. Leone said that while he originally spoke against the proposed vote he was now in favor of it.
• ARB recommendation approved 148-5 at 22:35.

We now had a strange interlude where Mr. Judd wanted to reconsider the DHS portion of the budget, but only if the COA nurse position was less than 21 hours. The Moderator then kept telling Mr. Judd to make the motion or sit down, while Mr. Judd kept saying he wouldn’t need to make the motion if the Manager would say the position was at least 21 hours. Eventually Mr. Judd gave up and sat down, with a sarcastic, sotto voce “Happy Retirement” directed at the Moderator.

Article 60 – Appropriation/Tip Fee Stabilization Fund:

• Begun 22:37.
• FinComm recommended a $680,000 appropriation into the Fund.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:37.

Article 61 – Transfer of Funds/Cemetery:

• Begun 22:37.
• FinComm recommended a $180,000 transfer.
• Mr. Judd asked if the funds were sufficient, saying that the cemetery is in poor condition.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:39.

Article 62 – Appropriation/Overlay Reserve:

• Begun 22:39.
• FinComm recommended a $400,000 appropriation into the overlay reserve.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:39.

Article 63 – Appropriation/Stabilization Fund:

• Begun 22:39.
• FinComm recommended a $2,100,000 appropriation into the Fund.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:40.

Article 64 – Use of Free Cash:

• Begun 22:40.
• FinComm recommended using $1,939,695 in free cash.
• FinComm recommendation approved unanimously at 22:40.

Article 65 – Alternatives Regarding Elementary School Program:

• Begun 22:40.
• BOS recommended a vote for the resolution set forth in its report to direct the School Facilities Working Group to carry out its charge and report.
• Mr. Spangler said it was gratifying to see the committment to rebuild Thompson and Stratton, but worries that the Town will not be ready when the moratorium is lifted next year because the SFWG has only met a few times and has not issued any of the reports or financial plans it was supposed to. He said the new SBA has a different prioritization scheme and lower reimbursement rates which means the Town will have it’s “work cut out” to come up with a financing plan and that we won’t be ready at the current rate. He urged a vote for the resolution to push the SFWG to do the research and planning that is needed to be ready for the moratorium lifting.
• Mr. Trembly attempted to ask a question about the school rebuilding history and was shot down by the Moderator.
• Mr. Daly moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• BOS recommendation approved unanimously at 22:51.

Article 66 – Scenic Byway:

• Begun 22:51.
• BOS recommended a vote that the BOS be requested to work with neighboring towns to have a portion of the Battle Road corridor in Arlington be designated as a scenic byway.
• Mr. Winkeler (president of the AHS) urged support, noting that Arlington is overshadowed by Lexington and Concord even though some of the fiercest fighting occurred here. He said about 105,000 people visit Minuteman National Historic Park annually while only around 600 visit the Jason Russell House. He said Lexington, Concord, Lincoln and the MNHP saught out Arlington so was to work towards a complete Battle Road and that the designation may lead to greater recognition of Arlington.
• Mr. Trembly asked if the designation would bring on any federal obligations or restrictions. Mr. Winkler said this was only a resolution.
• Mr. Schlichtman moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• BOS recommendation approved at 22:58.

Article 67 – Positive Parenting Resolution:

• Begun 22:58.
• BOS recommended no action.
• Mr. Daly rose and addressed the Moderator. The Moderator asked him why he rose and he moved the previous question. The Moderator shot him down, saying that “we may want to wrap this up but that we will be fair.” The Moderator recognized Mr. Garrity with Mr. Daly continuing to get the Moderator to recognize him.
• Mr. Garrity said he would never do to Mr. Daly what Mr. Daly was trying to do to him. He then made the substitute motion of the resolution, said he did not want to see children abused, and introduced Ms. Lawrence.
• Ms. Lawrence said 40 years of research show corporal punishment is ineffective and that it makes people more abusive and more likely to have emotional and criminal problems. She said that corporal punishment causes approximately 5,000 deaths per year and lamented that the US has not ratified the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child. She said that while child abuse is illegal, nothing can be done about violence that is short of the legal standard for child abuse. She decried the existence of “boot camps” for adolescents and that devices (pulling out some sort of whip) can be legally used to hit children. She said that when children grew up to be voters, they would be more likely to vote for people who had voted to protect their rights.
• Mr. Quinn moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• Lawrence substitute motion defeated.
• BOS recommendation of no action approved at 23:10.

Ms. Fiore said some of the behavior she saw in the meeting tonight was “appalling” and received a long ovation.

The Moderator thanked everyone for their support, co-operation, and deference over the years and received a long standing ovation.

Article 2 – Committee Reports:

• Untabled at 23:14.
• Mr. Tosti thanked the meeting and had to endure having “Happy Birthday” sung at him.
• Mr. Tosti moved to dissolve the meeting.
• Meeting dissolved at 23:15.

Ever since I heard about the anti-spanking resolution, I had a tickle of familiarity in the back of my mind. I finally looked at my old notes and discovered that on 12 June 2003, under Article 82 of that year’s warrant, we faced what sounds like a similar resolution to the one under this year’s Article 67. The 2003 Article 82 discussion went as follows:

• Mr. Fuller introduced Ms. Wolf, who spoke about the negatives of corporeal punishment. She said that the proposed resolution would not impose any legal obligations or liabilities on the town, and was not about legalities or forcing people. She said that if such a policy encouraged people to come forward for help, that would be wonderful. She said it is a proper topic for TM because it is everyone’s business and that if the resolution helps one child, it will be worth it.
• Mr. Kohl said this was not an appropriate subject to be considered by TM and urged the resolution’s defeat.
• Mr. Adams moved the previous question – debate terminated.
• Resolution was defeated on a voice vote.

Aside from the Venner Rd article (Article 20), the remaining articles are 38, 39, 56-67, for a total of fourteen.

Articles 38 and 39 are the collective bargaining ones, but since the word on the street is that there are no pending agreements, Article 38 will likely be a quick “no action” vote after a brief explanation of where negotiations stand, and Article 39 will be a quick vote to set aside money to fund the agreements when they ultimately happen.

Article 56 (appropriation for Minuteman Senior Services) may draw some discussion, since FinComm recommended no action, as may Article 58 (appropriation for 200th Anniversary Committee) because FinComm recommended $1,000 but the committee wants $6,200. Articles 57 and 59-64 are routine and will likely be voted on with little or no discussion.

Article 65 seems uncontroversial to me, though if some built-up resentment was behind the filing of the article (I have no idea if there was or not), then there could be some venting. That aside, I can easily see it being voted with little discussion.

Since (according to the BOS report) there are no obligations on the Town or property owners to have pieces of Mass Ave declared a scenic byway, Article 66 should also not take up much time.

So the drivers will be Article 20 (Venner Rd) and Article 67 (Anti-spanking resolution). I think that if the Venner Road matter is concluded by 22:00, we will finish on Monday because the remaining hour will leave enough time to get through everything else and begin debate on Article 67. With Article 67 underway, I believe the meeting will turn down a motion to adjourn at 23:00 and instead will stay and finish the meeting rather than come back for a short session on Wednesday. Staying late may well happen even if Venner Road goes past 22:00, maybe even to 22:30.

As for Article 67 itself, I think either debate will be terminated very quickly (for example, a “pro” speaker, a “con” speaker, and then the motion to end debate — as happened with the Anti-spanking resolution back in 2003), or will go on for a long time. I don’t think there will be a middle ground.

I believe we will be able to finish on Monday, though that depends on how long the Venner Road article takes, and it could take some time, as the whole thing is very complex, emotion, getting heated, and I think has another couple of twists and turns yet to come. There’s also the problem of figuring out whom to believe.

But once that’s done, there’s not much left. There are a few routine FinComm articles left (though perhaps there will be a clash between the 200th Anniversary Committee, which wants $6,200 and FinComm, which voted to give them $1,000), a couple of BOS articles which should be uncontroversial, and then the spanking article.

So if Venner Rd is done by 21:30, I think we can finish for sure. If it goes on much past that it’ll be interesting to see if the meeting is willing to stay past 23:00 to finish up and not have to come back on the 17th. It has happened before. I remember one year where stayed past 23:30 to finish up and avoid having to come back one more night for less than an hour.

Preliminaries:

• Called to order at 20:03.

Article 2 – Committee Reports:

• Untabled at 20:08.
• Vision 2020 report received.
• Ms. Howard presented the survey results in the report.
• Report of BOS on Article 20 received.
• Tabled at 20:18.

Article 42 – Appropriation/Capital Budget:

• Begun 20:18.
• FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
• Mr. Foskett presented the Capital Planning Committee report. He noted there is a $1,200,000 placeholder for rink expenses a couple of years from now but pointed out that is a very tentative figure and that it will have to come from general funds since the rink enterprise fund is unable to cover that high an expense. He said some items in the capital plan for the schools was moved around a bit to allow the use of interest that has accumulated on not-yet-expended bonding proceeds before state anti-arbitrage rules take it away.
• Mr. Jamieson disputed that capital spending should be 5% of revenues, since some Town revenues are funds that the Town immediately sends to other entities (such as to Minuteman, or reserve funds). Mr. Foskett replied the exact definition of revenue is irrelevant, since if applicable revenues were defined down, the required percentage of them would simply be increased, holding the total capital spending the same because Town needs require capital spending at that level. Mr. Jamieson asked how the Ottoson reimbursement is being accounted. Mr. Foskett said the “extra” $400,000-$500,000 reimbursements due to the state’s acceptance of the audit will go into the general fund. Mr. Jamieson said he was glad to see more items bought with cash and hopes that will continue. He asked if the Water & Sewer Enterprise Fund was billed for its share of the capital expenses for equipment it used. Mr. Sanchez said the WSEF was billed for its share of regular expenses.
• Mr. Cleinman asked how many bulletproof vests were being purchased and was concerned that the police force was not properly outfitted. Mr. Foskett said the $29,000 figure is part of a rotating purchase plan. Chief Ryan said 19 vests were purchased and that every officer has a current vest.
• Mr. Ruderman asked why the photocopier program expenses are significantly lower in FY07 and then are forecast to snap back. Mr. Foskett said sometimes departments use copiers for an extra year or two, reducing expenses.
• Mr. Schlichtman moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• Part (1) approved unanimously.
• Mr. Leonard asked why there was $130,000 for Town Garden wall repairs. Mr. O’Brien said the wall remains in danger of collapsing and the repair cost is actually $200,000 but the Town has been accumulating funds towards it. He said that with a $65,000 appropriation this year the total will be around $140,000 and that some work may start on it this year rather than wait to reach the full $200,000.
• Part (2) approved unanimously.
• Mr. Carreiro asked if capital costs are allocated to enterprise funds. Mr. Foskett said enterprise funds pay their own capital costs to the extent they can. If costs would cause a fund balance to go negative, the excess cost is picked up by the main budget.
• Mr. Judd was pleased that voting booths are being replaced, but said they should be sold rather than scrapped. He also said he believed the old hand-cranked ballot readers have migrated into various hands without anything being paid to the Town and said the Manager should be alert to disposing of Town property properly.
• Mr. Burke asked why $235,000 is being spent on Menotomy Rocks Park. Mr. Carabello replied that work will be done on the path system and on shoreline remediation to prevent pond silting, as the Town does not want to repeat the dredging experience. Mr. Burke complained that the previous work “ruined” the pond and messed up skating and that the lights were broken and asked if this would all be fixed. Mr. Carabello said it would.
• Mr. Judd asked if the Mill Lane culvert work had anything to do with Peirce Field. Mr. Sanchez said the Mill Lane work is off of Lowell Street and had nothing to do with the field.
• Part (3) approved unanimously.
• Part (4) approved unanimously.
• Part (5) approved unanimously, closing the article at 20:55

Article 52 – Permissive Legislation:

• FinComm recommended a vote to create a $350,000 SPED reserve fund.
• Mr. Tosti said this was to set up a reserve account for SPED expenses and that any carryover to future years or additions of funds would have to go through Town Meeting.
• Mr. Fischer asked if the general reserve fund could be used. Mr. Tosti said it could but isn’t big enough. Mr. Fischer said the reserve should be built incrementally through surpluses rather than being funded by appropriation and asked if the $350,000 was coming from operating budgets. Mr. Tosti said it was. Mr. Levinson said this was originally planned in FY06 but the DOR did not allow the plan SchoolComm was going to use and so a warrant article approach was taken this year. He said the budget was tight and unplanned SPED costs are always likely and that the reserve would allow for more efficient use of the operating budget since there would be no need to build reserves into the operating budget. Mr. Fischer said he would vote against it.
• Mr. Schlichtman said a no vote would in essence reduce the school budget by $350,000. He said the fund is a transparency item as it makes the reserve explicit rather than having it exist in the form of fudge factors in the operating budget.
• Mr. Sandrelli moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• FinComm recommendation approved at 21:09.

Article 15 – Bylaw Amendment/Assessors Report:

• Begun 21:09.
• BOS recommend a vote as set forth in its supplemental report to resolve that the assessors report to residents on the assessment process and various statistics and trends.
• BOS recommendation approved unanimously at 21:11.

Article 28 – Home Rule Legislation/Tax Exemptions:

• Begun 21:11.
• BOS recommended a vote to increase the income threshold to $30,000 and decrease the interest rate to 6%.
• Mr. LaCourt said the BOS had originally been more generous but realized it was better to be more measured and see where things go.
• Mr. Tosti moved a substitute to have the interest rate be set equal to the yield established by the May auctions of 10-year Treasuries, with a floor of 6% and a ceiling of 8%.
• Mr. Jones said FinComm wants to prevent arbitrage by avoiding setting the rate below what people can earn on bonds and CDs as well as having to vote to adjust the rate every year. He said the 6% floor came from the BOS vote and the 8% ceiling the statutory maximum and noted that the interest rate does not affect a senior’s ability to stay in their home since the deferred taxes and interest are only due on transfer of the property.
• Mr. Loreti moved to amend both motions by raising the $30,000 limit to $40,000. He said deferral is a loan, not a gift and that BOS and FinComm are being overly cautious using the $30,000 figure. He said that on an inflation-adjusted basis $40,000 is where $20,000 (the current limit) was 15 years ago, that only 1,200 people in the entire state use deferral programs, and that many peer group towns use $40,000. He said that if it is not raised to $40,000 we cannot tell seniors during the next override campaign that we did all we could for them.
• Recess 21:28 through 21:41.
• Ms. Worden moved a substitute to provide for an option where by in return for a permanent affordable housing restriction being placed on the property, taxes would be abated. Town Counsel said that could not be legally done. Citing Town Counsel, the Moderator ruled the motion out of order.
• Mr. Tosti moved to amend to fix the typo of “minimum” for “maximum”, which was approved by unanimous consent.
• Mr. Streitfeld asked if the deferred taxes could be bonded. Town Counsel said covering deferrals was the point of the overlay reserve fund. Mr. Tosti corrected Town Counsel, saying the overlay reserve is for exemptions and abatements only and that deferrals are booked to the uncollected taxes receivable. Mr. Streitfeld, positing a clash between an Arlington tax lien and a Medicaid lien, asked which would have priority. Mr. Greeley (assessor) said the tax lien would have priority. Mr. Streitfeld said he at first though the motions were a great idea but is having second thoughts, since the program amounts to a reverse mortgage which is a product available privately. Ms. LaCourt said one can outlive a reverse mortgage and that you have to make payments on them.
• Mr. Jamieson asked if the implementation was simple. The Treasurer said a flat rate is less complex than a floating one. Mr. Jamieson asked if the deferrals do go to uncollected taxes. The Treasurer confirmed they do and added that currently there is about $295,000 in deferred taxes and $112,000 in accrued interest. Mr. Jamieson asked if uncollected taxes affect the Town’s credit rating. The Treasurer said they do not directly, but that if they lowered revenues enough the agencies might recommend borrowing against them to bring in current funds.
• Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) urged a vote for the BOS motion and that while she was originally in favor of the $40,000 limit, finance people she spoke to advised taking it slowly as it can always be increased in future years. She said the lower, simpler, 6% rate should be supported.
• Mr. Abbot pointed out that one can already get CDs over 5% and so preferred the floating rate over the fixed 6%. He also asked what the Treasurer thought of the program. The Treasurer said he believed both the $30,000 limit and the deferral program as a whole are “appropriate”.
• Mr. Fischer wanted better information and for Vision 2020 to run a poll. He asked if there was any ability to handle medical hardship cases. Mr. Greeley (assessor) said taxes can be abated, even entirely, if all of a financial test, an age test, and an infirmity test are met. Mr. Fischer asked how often it happened and Mr. Greeley replied there have been 10 cases of relief in the past two years. Mr. Fischer said he supported the Loreti amendment.
• Mr. Rehrig noted that since the interest as well as the taxes are deferred, the interest actually falls on the heirs and therefore he could not justify the 6% rate.
• Mr. Leone moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• At this point, the Moderator did something I had never seen before (though I thought it was an excellent idea). He called for standing votes on the $20,000, $30,000, and $40,000 limits and on the 6%, 8% and floating rates (so six votes in all) to see which combination the meeting preferred, rather than having us vote on many different combinations.
• Income limit vote:
  $20,000 — 5
  $30,000 — 95
  $40,000 — 46
• Interest rate vote:
  8% — 17
  6% — 41
  Float — 93
• Since the pluralities were for $30,000 and the floating rate, which were FinComm’s substitute motion, the Moderator put the FinComm substitute before us.
• FinComm substitute motion approved at 22:15.

Article 55 – Appropriation/GIS:

• Begun 22:15.
• BOS recommended a vote to create a committee to oversee the effort to determine if the Town has 1.5% of its area covered by affordable housing.
• Ms. LaCourt said the Town is close to the 1.5% of area exemption from 40B and that the committee will investigate if the Town reaches the figure or how close it is if the figure is not reached.
• Mr. Loreti said this is not a 40B exemption but rather that the Town gains the power to reject a 40B application without it being appealable to the state. He asked what the BOS policy is for dealing with 40B applications. Ms. LaCourt said the BOS want to see a zoning bylaw and master plan study done and that it supports the AHC through CDBG allocations, which include a $400,000 allocation this year. Mr. Loreti said the Town should develop a policy for dealing with the applications.
• Mr. Dunn moved the previous question — defeated.
• Mr. Levy said it was not appropriate or needed for a committee to oversee the Planning Department.
• Mr. Belskis explained the terms of and problems with 40B and discussed the history of the current effort to see if the Town meets the 1.5% threshold. He said he wants there to be oversight over the effort.
• Mr. Abbott moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• The Moderator pointed out that the BOS motion and Belskis motion have only one substantive difference — that the BOS motion requires one of the citizen appointees to have database experience.
• Belskis substitute motion defeated.
• BOS recommendation approved at 22:33.

Article 36 – CDBG Endorsement:

• Begun 22:33.
• BOS recommended a vote to endorse the BOS’s CDBG funding allocations.
• Mr. O’Brien said there was a 10% cut in the Town’s grant — the largest cut it has experienced.
• BOS recommendation approved unanimously at 22:36.

Article 7 – Bylaw Amendment/Stormwater Control:

• Resumed 22:36.
• BOS recommended a vote of no action.
• Mr. O’Brien said the number of questions, concerns, and suggestions the former motion drew showed it was not yet ready and that more time than we have for this meeting is needed to address those. Accordingly, the former motion is being withdrawn for no action with the intent of bringing it back next year.
• No action approved at 22:39.

Article 20 – Venner Road:

• Begun 22:39.
• BOS recommended a vote as set forth in its supplemental report to release the exterior lines if the owners agree to not subdivide into more than one additional lot and agree to pay 50% of the value of the new lot. The BOS vote was 3-2.
• Ms. LaCourt said that the case is complex and heated and that she would state the facts agreed to by everyone, the Manager would speak to the BOS recommendation, and that she would give the minority report.
• The Manager read through the handout he had distributed which took the position that the Town owned building rights and should be paid for them. He said the open space represented by the unbuilt space on the owners’ land should be preserved and that the owners should not receive a windfall. He said he has to consider the case objectively, without taking any account of the owners’ particular situation. He said there was no validity in the comparison to the release of exterior lines in a couple of places along Massachusetts Avenue and that he believes 33% to 50% of the value of the new lot is reasonable compensation to demand.
• Ms. LaCourt said the minority started from a different premise. She said the Town didn’t buy any land, but only an option to buy land. She said that while the majority recommendation is to demand payment of half the value of the new lot, the owners are liable for anything that happens on the land and that the Town would never offer to pay half the value of any loss in value on the lot should some unforeseen event cause a loss. She said the Town took the lines to build a road which the Town no longer has any intention of building. She said she believed restricting subdivision so that only one new lot could be created is reasonable, and that it is reasonable to have two houses on a lot of that size.

Meeting adjourned at 23:00 to 20:00 on 15 May.

One other thing — it came out in tonight’s session that the reason for the streetlight outage in the Heights last year was that power outages screwed up the timers. I have to say that my jaw dropped at that. Even since I was a kid, all the streetlights I’ve been around were obviously photocell controlled (by virtue of seeing them come on when weather conditions, etc. made it dark enough out regardless of time-of-day), so I never would have thought timers would be used anymore — because of the power outage issue the Heights experienced and because of wanting the ability for the lights to turn on whenever it was dark enough (due to weather conditions) and not at set times. Thankfully, we were told that the timer system has been converted to a photocell system. Here’s hoping that the next time the Town has to buy new lighting that it go with photocells in the first place.

The big news of the night is that after 18 years with the gavel, Mr. Worden announced it is “time to return to the floor” and that he will not seek re-election when his current term expires next spring. He received a long standing ovation.

I wonder if he had been considering this for a few years and if it was at least a partial impetus towards his request for the creation of an annually elected by the Meeting assistant moderator position.

The race next spring ought to be an interesting one. I can think of a couple of people I certainly expect will run, can think of a couple more who may run, and have heard rumors of one I found surprising. So who knows — we could have five (or even more) people running for the slot. The Post Office will be happy :-)

As for tonight’s session, it went quite a bit slower than I was expecting. We only managed to finish off the operating budgets. Not only did we not finish tonight (which I didn’t really expect), but I doubt we’ll finish Wednesday, either. There’s still the entire capital budget, the senior tax deferral, and the twistier-by-the-minute Venner Road article, for starters.

Preliminaries:

• Meeting called to order at 20:00.
• Ottoson Select Choir sang the National Anthem and then performed a mini-concert of Witness, Britten’s Cuckoo and a third song whose name I missed.
• Moved and approved that when we adjourn we adjourn to 10 May at 20:00.
• Ms. LaCourt urged us to check out the MathExpo displays in the corridors.
• The Moderator announced that after 18 years with the gavel he will be retiring from the post and “returning to the floor” when his term expires next spring.
• Mr. Judd said that civilians should place their hand on their heart during the Pledge of Allegiance and if wearing a hat, they should place the hat over their heart, and that only the military or veterans in uniform should salute the flag.
• Article 2 retroactively untabled at 20:35 (see below).

Article 2 – Committee Reports:

• Begun 20:25.
• Report of the ARB on Symmes was received.
• Mr. Tsoi reviewed the changes in the project caused by the settlement, primarily the approximately $1,350,000 drop in sales price and the shrinkage of the residential buildings. He said the MOB price remains the same, though the penalty clause was changed.
• Mr. Judd, citing the price drop, asked if the names of the appellants and their attorneys were public records. Mr. Maher said they were.
• Mr. Dougherty said he was happy to see the reduction in units and asked if the $235,000 debt principal payment made by the developer on behalf of the Town would have to be paid back if the sale fell through. Mr. Tsoi said the developer would not make any more payments. Mr. O’Brien said the Town would have to reimburse the developer if the deal fell apart.
• Mr. Walton asked what party is responsible for filling the MOB. Mr. Tsoi said Fish is talking to a group who wants a mixed medical/alt-med facility, but wants it around 45,000 ft².
• At this point the Moderator realized that Article 2 was never untabled and had Mr. Foskett move to untable it retroactive to before Mr. Tsoi’s report.
• Report of the 200th Anniversary Committee was received.
• Ms. Meister gave the report of the Committee, said it will be asking for $6,200, will be asking for volunteers, will be sending out event calendars to all households, and will be planning a number of events, including fireworks and a year-end ball.
• PTBC report received.
• Mr. Cole said $112,500 will be reimbursed to the general fund from the Hardy contractor, that the Pierce ramp slope problem was fixed, that the state gave a waiver on the ramp curvature, that the heating problem was fixed, that Dallin opened on time and under budget, that the SBA moratorium continues, that the state has accepted the Ottoson audit and will reimburse the Town $13,900,000, and that the Park Avenue fire station has been cut to a single bay.
• Article 2 tabled at 21:03.

Article 41 – Appropriation/Town Budgets:

• Resumed from 3 May at 21:03.
• Sub-budgets 17 and 18 untabled.
• Mr. Starr praised the Town Manager’s FY2007 Financial Plan book and said that there is a dangerous lack of traffic enforcement and that the police budget is inadequate.
• Sub-budget 17 approved unanimously.
• Sub-budget 18 approved unanimously.
• Mr. Carreiro asked if the libraries budget was sufficient to maintain accreditation. Ms. Loud said it was.
• Sub-budget 20 approved unanimously.
• The Manager said he plans to pull Recreation out of DHS and make it a full department once Ms. Kraemer retires.
• Mr. Judd asked where the Recreation budget was in the FinComm report. The Manager replied that it is budgeted through an enterprise fund but is part of DHS. Mr. Judd asked if there were enough funds in veterans’ services. The Manager said he believed the projection was reasonable.
• Ms. Bernacchi complained that the COA nurse position was reduced to 19 hours/week and no benefits and that it would be very hard to find someone to take the position. The Manager said it was budgeted at 21 hours.
• Mr. Cook asked why the Manager’s Financial Plan book showed an increase in COA salary but a decrease in COA FTEs. The Moderator said the FinComm report was under discussion, not the Manager’s book.
• Ms. King was confused on what was being separated out. The Manager said that Rec is not its own department but he wants it to be.
• Mr. (James) McKinney asked why there was still a DHS Director’s salary if Ms. Kraemer is retiring. The Manager said that even though the department will be re-organized, it will still need a director, though with Recreation pulled out of it, the new director will likely have a lower salary.
• Mr. Tosi said the COA geriatric nurse is in fact only funded for 19 hours and the position is unfilled since no-one wants it. The Manager said he will continue to consider and monitor the issue.
• Mr. Schlichtman moved the previous question – debate on sub-budget 21 terminated 135-32.
• Sub-budget 21 approved.
• Recess from 21:38 to 21:40
• Sub-budget 22 approved unanimously.
• Mr. Judd asked why the Manager recommended that coalition bargaining be turned down. The Manager replied that he was willing to go along with all aspects of it except that he wanted a 2-3 year sunset that the unions were not willing to accept. His other problems are that wage and benefits are divorced, whereas he believes they need to be discussed together; that because of weighted votes, the teachers’ union can block anything; that it can never be revoked once accepted; that it does not allow for different benefits packages for different unions; and that it removed the BOS’s ability to manage retiree benefits. Mr. Judd said he appreciated the clear answer.
• Mr. Jamieson asked why the water and sewer enterprise fund contribution hasn’t gone up. Ms. Galkowski said it was in fact being overcharged and so was level-expensed this year. Mr. Jamieson asked if the fund was being billed on a cost basis or a premium basis. Ms. Galkowski said the fund was allocated its share of the premium. Mr. Jamieson asked why Medicare costs went up 10%. Ms. Galkowski said that was a function of how many employees and what they were paid. Mr. Jamieson said that if the insurance budget goes over the increase allowed it under the 5-year plan that the overage comes from services. He asked why retiree health contributions hadn’t been increased from 10%. The Manager said 70% of retirees pay 25%, not 10% and that the BOS is debating what to do with retiree contribution shares. Mr. Jamieson asked for an estimate of savings from Medicare D. The Manager said the current projection is $300,000 but is uncertain. Mr. Jamieson said he wanted that money to go to services and not to fund the unfunded retiree health benefits liability. The Manager said the liability must be addressed one way or the other and the Town Meeting would vote the appropriation under another article.
• Mr. Garrity asked if the insurance contracts have gone out to bid. Ms. Galkowski said the Town is using the same agent and Mr. Garrity responded that they should be put out to bid.
• Mr. Rosselli claimed there would be a strong possibility of saving money if coalition bargaining were used and noted that a number of towns have used it.
• Mr. Lewiton asked why workers’ comp was up 18% and asked what is being done to reduce injury rates. Ms. Galkowski said the budget had been stabilized through reserves, but with the reserves low a larger appropriation is needed. Mr. Merlenga said the injury rate was a little higher but that the specific combination of extent of injury and age of the injured is what pushed the expense up. Mr. Lewiton asked if there was a formal injury reduction program and Mr. Merlenga siad there was.
• Mr. Dougherty moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• Sub-budget 23 approved unanimously.
• Mr. Leonard asked for the cause of the streetlight problem in the Heights last year. Fire Chief McCuen said power outages upset the timers, which have since been replaced by photocells. Mr. Leonard asked why there was a $191,000 increase in expenses. Chief McCuen said $40,000 was transferring traffic light costs to the streetlight budget and the rest was the increase in electricity costs. Mr. Leonard said better communications were needed with businesses the next time a lighting failure like that happens.
• Mr. Judd complained that some of the problems with co-ordination may have been avoided if the Town had not laid off some support staff a few years ago.
• Sub-budget 24 approved unanimously.
• Sub-budget 25 approved unanimously.
• Mr. Jamieson noted a discrepancy in the water and sewer enterprise fund revenue item for debt shift to tax rate in the vote versus that item in the summary page. Mr. Foskett said the figure in the vote was correct. Mr. Jamieson asked if the budget was out of balance. Mr. Foskett said this was just an enterprise fund and that it was in balance.
• Mr. Cook asked what the monetary benefit of the new automated water meters were. The Manager said automated meters were being installed because the existing meters had reached the point where they had to be replaced anyways and not so much because of a manpower savings, which will be minimal since staffing for meter reading is only just over one FTE.
• Mr. Judd asked if running things out of enterprise funds instead of through the tax rate lowers state reimbursements. The Manager said he was not aware of any local aid formulas that would take enterprise funds into account.
• Water & Sewer Enterprise Fund approved unanimously.
• Recreation Enterprise Fund approved unanimously.
• Mr. Dunn asked the terms of the new rink lease with the state. The Manager said it was a 25-year lease which requires the Town to maintain the rink. Mr. Dunn asked the costs. The Manager said the rink bed and refrigeration system needs to be replaced and there will be around $2,500,000 in capital costs over 25 years. Mr. Dunn said he was very disappointed that nothing was being budgeted to cover those capital expenses and that there was no plan to pay for it.
• Mr. Leonard asked if the Town was required to keep the rink a rink. The Manager replied it had to remain a rink but that the Town could cancel the lease and turn the facility back to the state. Mr. Leonard asked if there was a penalty for that and the Manager said there was not.
• Mr. Dumyahn asked for confirmation of the $2,500,000 over 25 years figure, which the Manager gave. Mr. Dumyahn asked when the refrigeration system would have to be replaced and was told by the Manager it would need replacing within five years. Mr. Dumyahn asked who owned the facility and the Manager replied the state owned the building and the land under it. Mr. Dumyahn questioned the wisdom of spending so much on capital improvements on a building the Town does not own and asked if it should be purchased instead. The Manager said the state did not provide the option to purchase. Mr. Dumyahn said the Town should buy the rink.
• Mr. Deyst said it was a good thing the state owns the rink and that if the Town can’t make the rink’s economics work out it can be given back to the state.
• Ms. Fiore said the Town owns the land under the rink and regrets voting for the placement of the rink. However, she said the Town needs to spend whatever is necessary to maintain it.
• Mr. Dougherty asked if the Town purchased a $10,000 fryolator. The Manager said equipment was purchased for the concession stand but he did not know what or how much. Mr. Dougherty asked what the concession stand revenue was and was told $40,000 by the Manager. He also asked how ice time is decided. The Manager said youth sports gets first priority, school sports second and that some public ice time is required. Mr. Dougherty asked if all salaries listed were solely attributable to the rink, to which the Manager replied affirmatively. Mr. Dougherty asked if the rink’s capital expenses were anywhere else in the budget or capital budget. The Manager said they were not and conceded that Mr. Dunn had a good point about the lack of putting money aside for required improvements. Mr. Dougherty asked if the skating season could run longer. The Manager said it could not since the building was not constructed to be run in warm temperatures.
• Mr. Burke said that the idea of not having a rink in 25 years was ludicrous and that the Town should stop knocking down and rebuilding and instead maintain better.
• Mr. Schlictman moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• Veterans Memorial Rink Enterprise Fund approved.
• Mr. Tosi noted the FinComm vote shows more CDBG money going towards COA transportation than the BOS gave to the program. Ms. LaCourt said she believed it came from a surplus which Mr. O’Brien confirmed. Ms. Kraemer said the fund had built up a surplus which was being used to cover the gap.
• Mr. Leone asked the reserve fund balance. Ms. Kraemer said it was around $60,000.
• Mr. Judd asked what the correct figures were. The Manager said he could run the fund with the vote as-is.
• Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question — debate terminated.
• COA Transportation Enterprise Fund approved unanimously.
• Mr. Berkowitz asked if the Youth Services Division was doing any alcohol and drug education. Ms. Kraemer said the former director retired two years ago but is still running the program through a $10,000 grant and her own volunteer work. Mr. Berkowitz asked about the future of the position. Ms. Kraemer said the current approach will continue as long as the former director is interested, but when she is no longer interested the YSD will have to explore options.
• Youth Services Division Enterprise Fund approved unanimously at 23:02, finishing off the operating budgets article.

Motion to adjourn made and approved at 23:03.
Meeting adjourned to 10 May at 20:00.

Here’s a link to a PDF of the statement distributed to the TM Announce list last week.

We decelerated to a more traditional pace tonight — though that’s only fair (and generally appropriate) given that we’re on the budgets. I don’t believe finishing on 8 May is possible any more, but I do think that a 10 May finish still remains a fair possibility. Of the articles that could take considerable time, we still have the police & fire sections of the budget, the whole capital plan, the tax-deferral article, and the stormwater article (which I will vote against, and urge everyone else to vote against, unless it is amended to do something about the case where the runoff from your yard is mostly runoff merely going through your yard). I think just those will take most of the night. But if all that is done by around 22:30, I could imagine people deciding to just stay late and finish rather than come back Wednesday for only a few things. So everyone lined up for Article 67 may yet do well to be there Monday.

(Since virtually no-one’s taking advantage of being able to comment article-by-article, I’m switching back to the older style).

Preliminaries

• Meeting called to order at 20:03.
• While reminding us of our power of the purse, the Moderator noted that the Town Meeting of Stoneham just eliminated Selectmen’s salaries after their BOS imposed a trash fee.
• Mr. Schlichtman announced a delegation from our Japanese sister city has been in town and was in attendance tonight.
• Ms. Howard announced that one week from Saturday is phase two of the Spy Pond trails rebuild project. People will be building trails to the pond and doing cleanup from 09:30 to 15:30. You can show up at any time.
• Motion made and approved that when we adjourn we adjourn to 8 May at 20:00.

Article 2 – Committee Reports

• Removed from table at 20:16.
• Supplemental report of BOS received.
• Tabled at 20:17.

Article 45 – Appropriation/Town Celebrations

• Brought up at 20:17.
• Mr. Tosti moved to reconsider Article 45 since FinComm had forgotten to put the magic “said sum to be raised by the general tax” words in the vote.
• Reconsidered
• Mr. Tosti moved to amend the previous vote by adding the words.
• Mr. Daly asked what the appropriation is for the Patriots’ Day parade. Mr. Tosti said the $5,667 parade appropriation covered all the parades. Mr. Daly moved to increase the parade appropriation to $10,667.
• Mr. Tosti asked for the defeat of the amendment, saying the organizers had the chance to argue their case before FinComm and did not choose to do so. He said he would appreciate groups going through the usual budget channels rather than trying to change things at the last minute.
• Mr. Carman said FinComm spends a lot of time on the budgets and that the Town needs to prioritize expenses. He asked if a parade is really a core service and noted that FinComm voted down a number of things that were nice things but did not have high enough priorities.
• Mr. Deyst said the COA nurse is being reduced to less than half-time to eliminate her health benefits. Given that we are in a situation like that, he felt an extra $5,000 on parades is not appropriate.
• Ms. Mahon said she felt “Mr. Daly’s pain” and noted that it has been getting harder and harder for the Town Day Committee to keep Town Day totally self-sufficient even with raising $30,000-$40,000 for it.
• Ms. Fiore supported the amendment, saying she was disappointed at the parade and that Patriots’ Day is our history.
• Mr. Greeley (as a TMM) supported the amendment.
• Mr. Sweeney (? – I couldn’t hear the name clearly) supported the amendment and said there was flexibility to find the $5,000.
• Mr. Ford moved the previous question – debate terminated.
• Tosti amendment approved.
• Daly amendment defeated on voice vote, challenged, and defeated 69-106. Mr. Daly called for a roll-call vote, but far fewer than the 30 needed joined him.
• FinComm recommendation as amendment approved at 20:43.

Article 41 – Town Budgets

• Begun 20:43.
• FinComm recommendation as set forth in its report.
• Mr. Jamieson moved to table sub-budgets 1-22 in order to take up the insurance budget. He said that since insurance had increased over the target amount and therefore caused other budgets to be lower than they would otherwise have been, it should be taken first.
• Motion to table defeated.
• Sub-budget 1 approved unanimously.
• Mr. McElhoe asked why sub-budget 2 was so much higher. Mr. Tosti said that elections come under that budget and there are three elections in the next fiscal year.
• Sub-budget 2 approved unanimously.
• Mr. Jamieson asked about something not in sub-budget 3. The Moderator shot him down for not being germane.
• Mr. Judd asked for an explanation of why coalition bargaining was not used. Mr. Tosti said the BOS makes the decision and to take it up with them at one of their meetings. The Moderator said that if the question was germane at all, it would be under sub-budget 23.
• Sub-budget 3 approved.
• Mr. Jenkins asked why money comes into sub-budget 4 from the water & sewer enterprise fund. Mr. Tosti said the enterprise funds are like separate businesses and that Town departments which do work for the fund bill the fund for that work, which is we see the expense offsets from the fund.
• Sub-budget 4 approved unanimously.
• Sub-budget 5 approved unanimously.
• Sub-budget 6 approved unanimously.
• Sub-budget 7 approved unanimously.
• Sub-budget 8 approved.
• Mr. Ruderman asked for a breakdown of “legal expenses”. Mr. Maher replied that the BOS want to intervene in the CSO lawsuit and that the extra $31,000 was needed to hire outside specialized environmental counsel.
• Sub-budget 9 approved.
• Sub-budget 10 approved.
• Sub-budget 11 approved unanimously.
• Sub-budget 12 approved.
• Sub-budget 13 approved.
• Mr. Cleinman asked what the new expenses were for the Gibbs, etc. Mr. Tosti said FinComm decided to break out a single line item into more detail, so the expenses weren’t actually new.
• Mr. Starr asked what the revenue was from the rented buildings. Mr. Tosti said total rental income (for those plus the Mt. Gilboa house and some other properties) was $721,000 and that the Manager’s financial plan booklet had a breakdown.
• Sub-budget 14 approved unanimously.
• Ms. Fiore complained about the ZBA listing the successful completion of its first 40B development as a goal in the Manager’s financial plan booklet.
• Sub-budget 15 approved.
• Mr. Jamieson asked how the Manager was controlling overtime spending. The Moderator shot down the general question and limited it to sub-budget 16. Mr. Sanchez said that most DPW OT work is emergency OT. Mr. Jamieson asked why the snow deficit was not less than it was given how much less snow we had. Mr. Sanchez said the deficit for the previous year showed in the report as artificially low due to transfers from reserves, federal money, and other revenues. Mr. Jamieson complained about the grafitti and asked how much it would cost to fix the problem. Mr. Sanchez said it would take two man two weeks to clean the current grafitti and then a two-FTE patrol to keep up with it, which there was no money to do. Mr. Jamieson asked what a single man would cost and was told $35,000. He then moved to increase the DPW budget by $35,000.
• Mr. Greeley urged the amendment be defeated, saying the BOS is meeting with others to determine a policy and will come back next year with recommendations about what to do and how much to spend.
• Mr. Tosti agreed with Mr. Greeley and said the money wasn’t there. He suggested the BOS ask hardware stores to not sell spray paint to under-18s and that we pass a by-law next year prohibiting such sales.
• Mr. Rehrig said he liked the expense details for prior years’ trash and recycling but wanted similar detail for the appropriation. Mr. Tosti said that wasn’t available.
• Mr. Judd alluded to Giuliani’s anti-”broken windows” plan and said the graffitti must be cleaned up and the offenders prosecuted to the fullest extent. He supported the amendment.
• Mr. Schlichtman said that when the BOS says they can handle something with current resources, they should be given the chance. He urged defeat of the amendment but thanked Mr. Jamieson for bringing it up.
• Mr. Greeley clarified that the BOS is going to study the problem and then recommend what level of resources are needed.
• Mr. Burke said the grafitti needed to be addressed in schools, with students and their parents being educated on responsibility and that students should have to help clean it up.
• Mr. Cleinman said he did not want to hear the message that nothing could be done about the problem.
• Recess from 21:38 to 21:43.
• Mr. Tosti moved to amend sub-budget 16 to add the magic “the DPW director is authorized to transfer funds between line items” words that FinComm forgot to put in the report.
• Mr. Abbott moved the previous question on sub-budget 16 – debate terminated.
• Jamieson amendment defeated.
• Tosti amendment approved.
• Sub-budget 16 as amended approved.
• Tabled at 21:47.
• At this point we spent 21:47 through 22:17 on Article 45 (see below).
• Removed from table at 22:17.
• Mr. Tosti moved to table sub-budgets 17 and 18 to get to 19 (Education) so that the Superintendant did not have to come back another night.
• Motion to table approved.
• Ms. Sheffler said it was a very clear budget and that SchoolComm was impressed with it.
• Mr. Levinson said the budget had good news — compliant with the 5-year plan, only a 3% increase, and more resources for students (see the report for the deltas vs. last year). He said there was also bad news — restructuring and cuts in administration. He said grants are being used for core items instead of nice-to-haves because core items have to come first. He noted that this was a zero-based budget and was worked up from scratch by examining 18 months of invoices.
• Mr. Carreiro asked if SchoolComm had taken control of four revolving funds. Mr. Levinson said it had and that all the money coming into the funds was being spent. Mr. Carreiro suggested that a report on those funds be included in subsequent budget documents.
• Mr. Berkowitz asked if a grantwriter was on staff. Mr. Levinson said there were a number of people who fulfilled the research and writing function. Mr. Berkowitz asked if any adjustments could be made to seek grants more aggressively. Mr. Levinson said grants were aggressively sought but that more and more grants are being targed at low income and poor-performing schools. Mr. Berkowitz asked if suggestions from the public were welcome and Mr. Levinson answered that they were.
• Ms. Mahon asked if the $15,000 athletics grant had been received. Mr. Levinson said that no grants have been received but reasonable estimates have been made and a $250,000 reserve has been set aside to cover expected grants that aren’t won. Ms. Mahon asked about the 0.25 FTE reduction in a nurse’s administrative time. Mr. Levinson said this reflected a shift from that person doing 50/50 nursing/admin to 75/25 nursing/admin.
• Mr. Lewiton noted that $64,000 for 6.4 FTEs of counseling is very low. Mr. Levinson said all adjustment counselors were eliminated a couple of years ago and to try to make up for it there has been a pilot program with grad school interns (who are assigned to schools and do not float) being supervised by more experienced counselors. He said the feedback was positive and that while he’d rather have real counselors, they’d be too expensive. He said there was not much counseling at the high school aside from guidance counselors and IEP counseling and wished there were more. Mr. Lewiton said more mental health counselors are needed.
• Mr. Tully complained that the budget document was only handed out today. Mr. Levinson apologized, saying it has been available on-line for weeks and that he didn’t think to print it up earlier since he didn’t expect TM to get to it so quickly.
• Ms. Phelps said the admin cuts were “disastrous”. She noted there are 9 schools but only 8.8 FTEs of principal and asked if every school had a full-time principal. Mr. Levinson said every school does have one, but since the AHS principal also teaches history, 20% of his salary shows up in teaching expenses, not admin expenses.
• Mr. Trembly asked for more detail of the grants. Mr. Levinson said the ones starting with “Title” were various NCLB Act grants. Mr. Trembly asked what is being done with the “Title 4/Safe Schools” grant. Mr. Levinson said half was being used for teen mental health and half for health & safety programs in the elementary and middle schools.
• Mr. Tosti said FinComm was very impressed with the SchoolComm presentation to FinComm, congratulated Mr. Levinson on being willing to make changes and put priorities on things, and said FinComm unanimously supported the SchoolComm budget.
• Mr. Judd noted that approximately $8,000,000 of the budget is SPED-related expenses and that the state does not send the aid they should. He asked if any lobbying was being done. Mr. Levinson said the expense should not be begrudged, that he’s not optimistic about getting more from the state, but will continue to lobby. He said the school system needs to figure out how to service SPED students better at lower cost.
• Mr. Trembly asked if the Title 4 grant included any sex ed or sexual awareness programs. Mr. Levinson said he couldn’t answer until the grant applications were in.
• Mr. Cleinman corrected “student’s” to “students” in the report. He asked about the out-of-district SPED co-ordinator position. Mr. Levinson said the current position is a 10-month position and focuses on placing students out of the district while the new position is a 12-month position and will do both that plus figuring out how to serve more students in-district. He noted that if three students are in an OOD program at $50,000 each, sending another student to it will cost another $50,000, while if the program was in-house, the marginal cost would be far less. Disclosing that one of his children was in an OOD program, Mr. Cleinman asked what would happen o such students. Mr. Levinson said that if in-district services were not appropriate for a child, they would still go OOD. Mr. Cleinman asked if the current co-ordinator would have ot re-apply. Mr. Levinson said the position changed enough that a re-application was required under the contracted rules.
• Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on sub-budget 19 — debate terminated.
• Sub-budget 19 approved at 22:57.
• Adjourned to 20:00 on 8 May at 22:59.

Article 44 – Appropriation/Minuteman

• Begun 21:47.
• FinComm recommendation as set forth in its report.
• Ms. Morrisette, Arlington’s rep to the MM SchoolComm, introduced Mr. Callahan, the MM Superintendant.
• Mr. Callahan said the overall MM budget increased by 2.8%, but the part of the revenues that had to come from members towns increased by 5.7%. He noted there were big increases in transportation and employee benefits costs.
• Ms. LaCourt asked why our assessment went up by 12% when our enrollment only increased by 6%. Mr. Callahan said it was driven by the state-mandated local minimum contribution. Ms. LaCourt asked why there was such a variation in per-pupil costs between the member towns. Mr. Callahan said it was because of the differences in those local minimums.
• Mr. Carreiro noted that the MM handout said the requested number was not final and asked what happened if we voted the number and it turned out to be different. Mr. Callahan said MM would come back to the towns if the assessments had to be increased.
• Mr. Jamieson asked why Lexington’s per-pupil cost was so much lower than Arlington’s. Mr. Callahan said the assessment is determined by first applying every town’s mandatory minimum to what must be raised by assessment and then dividing the rest equally per student. Mr. DeCoursey said Arlington’s required minimum increased 20%. Mr. Jamieson noted benefits costs increased 20% and asked what employees contribute to their health benefits. Mr. Callahan said employees contribute 25% and MM contributes 75%.
• Mr. Schlichtman said one can go to the DOE website for more information on the calculations and that the reason for the per-pupil variance is Chapter 70 aid. He asked which aid number MM is using. Mr. Callahan said the House 2 number is being used. Mr. Schlichtman asked what happens if the aid ends up being higher. Mr. Callahan said it is up to the MM SchoolComm to keep the extra or return it to the towns. He also noted that the part of assessments above the minimum varies with the percentage of all MM students a member town has, not the percentage change in a town’s MM enrollment.
• Mr. Dunn said the average per-pupil number is meaningless because it counts all students equally, even though not all students cost the same. He said there are regular HS students, part-time middle school students, and post-grad students and the latter two are much cheaper than the first. So towns with a high number of the latter two relative to the first show low per-pupil numbers. But that’s only because a higher proportion of their enrollment is “cheap” students, not because they are paying less for their students than other towns.
• Mr. Phillips asked what the per-pupil costs for regular HS students is at MM and in Arlington. Mr. Callahan said the MM number was $13,746 and Ms. Sheffler said the Arlington number was around $9,000. Mr. Phillips said it was unreasonable for MM to be that much more expensive and that MM students should not get more. Mr. Callahan said it is recognized even by the state that vocational education is more expensive. Mr. Phillips said he’d rather see more of the money go to AHS.
• Mr. Abbott moved the previous question – debate terminated.
• FinComm recommendation approved at 22:17.

The unprecedented pace continues. In all seriousness, I wonder what’s up this year. There definitely seems to be a drive to get it over with. I’ve never seen so many motions to postpone defeated. I’d love to know what to attribute the change in attitude to. Even the Moderator made a jokingly surprised comment about the “new” Town Meeting.

By my count we disposed of another 15 articles, making a three-session total of 41. With only 65 articles in the warrant (not counting the election article or the reports article) that leaves only 24, though two of those are the operating and capital budgets. Finishing on 8 May is definitely in sight and finishing by 10 May looks very feasible.

• Begun 22:55.
• FinComm recommended no action as there are no taxes to accept.
• No action approved unanimously at 22:56.
• Motion to adjourn approved at 22:58.